Abolish Death Penalty India: acquits

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

SC Finally Corrects The Error: Acquits Six Persons Sentenced To Death By A 2009 Judgment (Maharashtra)

BY: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK5 March 2019 8:51 AM

The Supreme Court on Monday acquitted three persons who were sentenced to death by it in 2009, and also three others whose death penalty was confirmed by it. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah, also ordered the State of Maharashtra to pay Rupees 5 Lakh as damages to each of them Ankush Maruti Shinde, Rajya Appa Shinde, Ambadas Laxman Shinde, Raju Mhasu Shinde, Bapu Appa Shinde and Surya alias Suresh were accused of committing five murders and raping a lady (who survived) and a child of 15 years of age (who died). The Trial Court convicted all of them and sentenced them to death.

In the appeals filed by them, the Bombay High Court set aside death penalty awarded to three of them and instead sentenced them to life imprisonment. While for the remaining three, the death sentence was confirmed.

Left to Right: Justice Sikri, Justice Nazeer, Justice Shah

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Mukundakam Sharma, in 2009, not only dismissed the appeals filed by the three whose death sentence was confirmed by the High court, but also allowed State's appeal and sentenced the other three to death sentence. The Supreme Court had found the crime to be cruel and diabolic. It had observed that the collective conscience of the community was shocked; the victims were of a tender age and defenseless; the victims had no animosity towards the accused and the attack against them was unprovoked. Considering these factors awarded the death penalty to all the accused.

In February 2014, a bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and Ibrahim Kalifulla admitted the review petitions filed by all the death convicts, accepting the arguments of Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee that it was decided relying on a wrong precedent- Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 2 SCC 175]. It was argued that Ravji's case and the six subsequent cases in which Ravji was followed were decided per incuriam, as the law laid down therein is contrary to the law laid by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh. In October 2018, a three Judge Bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph had recalled the 2009 Judgment and the Appeals were restored. The Bench also gave permission for Accused number 3,5 and 6 for filing appeals.

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-acquits-death-row-convicts-143331 (Accessed 05 March 2019)

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

HC acquits 7 men awarded death penalty in honour killing case

PTI | Jul 13, 2013, 09.53PM IST

ALLAHABAD: Due to lack of evidence, the Allahabad high court has let off seven persons, who were awarded death sentence by a lower court in connection with an alleged honour killing case of Badaun district in Uttar Pradesh.

A division bench comprising Justice Amar Saran and Justice Pankaj Naqvi on Friday ordered "the release of Natthu, Rakesh, Mahavir, Viresh, Jai Prakash, Pappu and Gulab Singh" holding that they "stand acquitted of charges they had been found guilty of".

The appellants had challenged July 30, 2012 order of additional sessions judge, Badaun.

They were awarded death sentence for allegedly burning alive Deen Dayal and Anita in a village under Gunnaur police station of the district on the intervening night of May 22-23, 2006.

Anita was the daughter of one of the appellants, Natthu.

The girl's affair with Deen Dayal was said to have been bitterly opposed by her family.

However, during the trial, Natthu denied his involvement in the incident and claimed that the remaining six accused had "resorted to this abhorrent crime to grab his property".

The high court struck down the conviction of all the seven accused observing that the trial court had convicted them "on the strength of the statement" given by Natthu, which was "not a substantive piece of evidence which could have nailed the other set of accused persons".

"The trial court was swayed by the fact Natthu in his statement ... had admitted his presence at the scene of occurrence," the court noted, adding "this approach was absolutely de hors the law.

The prosecution had failed to prove the case, in the mode and manner as alleged by them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Source : http://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/HC-acquits-7-men-awarded-death-penalty-in-honour-killing-case/articleshow/21060034.cms

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of 193 countries that retains the death penalty. Some judges have delivered landmark verdicts upholding the rights of death row prisoners, while debates continue advocating abolition or reform of sentencing policies. The Indian government remains committed to retention, asserting executions occur only in “rarest of rare” cases. The death penalty applies to crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or mentally-retarded person, and in certain cases of rape. Outrage over child rape and murder has intensified these discussions. After an unofficial eight-year moratorium, the government executed Ajmal Kasab (Mumbai attacks) in 2012 and Afzal Guru (Parliament attack) in 2013, both covertly and immediately after mercy petitions were rejected. Prior to this, Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed in 2004 after 13 years on death row. Following these, many mercy petitions have been rejected, creating fear among death row convicts. Courts continue to hand down death sentences at an increasing rate. Empirical studies highlight the plight of death row prisoners. The India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found fair trial rights largely denied, with convicts often marginalized by caste, religion, poverty, and education. The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) documented socio-economic profiles and experiences of death row prisoners. Dr. Reena Mary George’s studies (2014, 2009) emphasized poverty, social exclusion, and dignity as central to death row experiences, and examined the human rights impact of the penalty. According to the National Crime Records Bureau 2015, 101 prisoners were on death row, with many sentences commuted to life. The “rarest of rare” doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court in the 1980s has not substantially limited death sentences, which have increased over the decades. Justice Joseph (2018) reaffirmed the Bachan Singh judgment but urged restriction of the death penalty to only those cases meeting its criteria. While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies? Reena Mary George